J M Ospel1, G Gascou2, V Costalat2, L Piergallini2,3, K A Blackham4, D W Zumofen1,5. 1. From the Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Section (J.M.O., K.A.B., D.W.Z.), Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2. Department of Neuroradiology (G.G., V.C., L.P.), Hôpital Gui de Chauliac, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 3. Postgraduation School of Radiodiagnostics (L.P.), Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 4. From the Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Section (J.M.O., K.A.B., D.W.Z.), Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine kristineann.blackham@usb.ch. 5. Department of Neurosurgery (D.W.Z.), University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Sim&Size software simulates case-specific intraluminal Pipeline Embolization Device behavior, wall apposition, and device length in real-time on the basis of rotational angiography DICOM data. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate whether preimplantation device simulation with the Sim&Size software results in selection of different device dimensions than manual sizing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter cohort of 74 patients undergoing aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device, we compared apparent optimal device dimensions determined by neurointerventionalists with considerable Pipeline Embolization Device experience based on manual 2D measurements taken from rotational angiography with computed optimal dimensions determined by Sim&Size experts blinded to the neurointerventionalists' decision. Agreement between manually determined and computed optimal dimensions was evaluated with the Cohen κ. The significance of the difference was analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The agreement index between manual selection and computed optimal dimensions was low (κ for diameter = 0.219; κ for length = 0.149, P < .01). Computed optimal device lengths were significantly shorter (median, 14 versus 16 mm, T = 402, r = -0.28, P < .01). No significant difference was observed for device diameters. CONCLUSIONS: Low agreement between manually determined and computed optimal device dimensions is not proof, per se, that virtual simulation performs better than manual selection. Nevertheless, it ultimately reflects the potential for optimization of the device-sizing process, and use of the Sim&Size software reduces, in particular, device length. Nevertheless, further evaluation is required to clarify the impact of device-dimension modifications on outcome.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Sim&Size software simulates case-specific intraluminal Pipeline Embolization Device behavior, wall apposition, and device length in real-time on the basis of rotational angiography DICOM data. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate whether preimplantation device simulation with the Sim&Size software results in selection of different device dimensions than manual sizing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter cohort of 74 patients undergoing aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device, we compared apparent optimal device dimensions determined by neurointerventionalists with considerable Pipeline Embolization Device experience based on manual 2D measurements taken from rotational angiography with computed optimal dimensions determined by Sim&Size experts blinded to the neurointerventionalists' decision. Agreement between manually determined and computed optimal dimensions was evaluated with the Cohen κ. The significance of the difference was analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The agreement index between manual selection and computed optimal dimensions was low (κ for diameter = 0.219; κ for length = 0.149, P < .01). Computed optimal device lengths were significantly shorter (median, 14 versus 16 mm, T = 402, r = -0.28, P < .01). No significant difference was observed for device diameters. CONCLUSIONS: Low agreement between manually determined and computed optimal device dimensions is not proof, per se, that virtual simulation performs better than manual selection. Nevertheless, it ultimately reflects the potential for optimization of the device-sizing process, and use of the Sim&Size software reduces, in particular, device length. Nevertheless, further evaluation is required to clarify the impact of device-dimension modifications on outcome.
Authors: Hector Fernandez; Juan M Macho; Jordi Blasco; Luis San Roman; Werner Mailaender; Luis Serra; Ignacio Larrabide Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Ding Ma; Gary F Dargush; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui; Hui Meng Journal: J Biomech Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ana Paula Narata; Jordi Blasco; Luis San Roman; Juan Miguel Macho; Hector Fernandez; Raquel Kale Moyano; Renaud Winzenrieth; Ignacio Larrabide Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: D Fiorella; P Lylyk; I Szikora; M E Kelly; F C Albuquerque; C G McDougall; P K Nelson Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 5.836